alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 11, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Defense Electronics Consortium (“DEC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Specifically, Della Systems, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY; Eagle Circuits, Inc., Dallas, TX; Intrinsix Corp., Marlborough, MA; and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum, MD have been added as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 12, 2023, DEC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on August 8, 2023 (88 FR 53520).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 14, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 27, 2023 (88 FR 66507).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-27603 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# C_2018166EN.01004202.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/42

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

(Case T-194/18)

(2018/C 166/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BonNatura — Application for registration No 14 038 491

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 949/2017-5.

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 46 of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Protected Resources

Last Modified: 

Print

We recommend and conduct integrated wildlife damage management activities to

protect many types of resources, including expansive sunflower fields in the

Dakotas; small vegetable gardens in suburban backyards; orchards in Oregon;

pasture land and cattle in Texas; bridges, roads and airports throughout the nation;

rare wetland ecosystems; threatened and endangered shorebirds; air passenger

safety; and industrial facilities in towns and cities.

Protecting Agriculture

Agricultural resources are associated with farming and ranching, and associated

industries. They include livestock (e.g., sheep, cattle, calves, fowl, and swine), crops

(e.g., corn, soybeans, strawberries, and pecans), rangeland and timber, aquaculture

(e.g., farm raised catfish and trout), agricultural animal feed, and animal products.

WS activities to protect agriculture may include managing predators to protect

livestock, alleviating bird damage at aquaculture facilities, and applying integrated

waterfowl and deer damage management programs to reduce crop damage.

Learn More About Our Work to Protect Agriculture
Protecting Natural Resources

Natural resources are those associated with publicly managed parks, lakes, state

and national forests, wildlife and fish, (including sensitive, threatened, and

endangered species), and wetlands. Natural resource protection includes the

protection of natural areas from the impacts of invasive species such as nutria and

feral swine, the safeguarding of rare, threatened and endangered wildlife species

from the negative impacts of more abundant ones, and the provision of information

and education on the ecology and values associated with wildlife encountered by the

public.

Learn More About Our Work to Protect Natural Resources
Protecting Property

Property resources are non-agricultural possessions. This resource category includes

business and residential buildings and structures, equipment, vehicles, and

machinery, pets and other companion animals, and a myriad of other items that are

valued by people. WS work to protect property may consist of waterfowl

management to protect golf courses, dispersing vultures to protect vehicles and

homes, and providing recommendations to reduce deer damage to backyard

gardens and landscape plantings.

Learn More About Our Work to Protect Property
Protecting Human Health and Safety

Human health and safety work is associated with the protecting people from death,

injury, and threats. This category includes human safety protection and response

related to wildlife-aircraft collisions, attacks on people by mountain lions and other

wildlife species, and rabies management activities.

Learn More About Our Work to Protect Human Health and Safety
March 2021

There were 9 surveillance inspections conducted at 9 different sites for a total of 46

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures began to increase in response to the 

warming air temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and 

were scheduled for monthly sampling. No cages were confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

April 2020 50 0 23050

May 2020 50 0 23100

June 2020 80 0 23180

July 2020 56 0 23236

August 2020 50 0 23286

September 2020 50 0 23336

October 2020 45 0 23381

November 2020 35 0 23416

December 2020 45 0 23461

January 2021 45 0 23506

February 2021 45 0 23551

March 2021 46 0 23597
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

|Dated: December 11,
      2009 | /s/ TODD E. WILLE            
|------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                               | Todd E. Wille                
|                               | Chief Executive
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001             FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-30-2000             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-28-2000             OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                               0               2,048,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0               1,673,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                 (49,802)
<INVENTORY>                                          0              72,920,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0              87,346,255
<PP&E>                                               0              51,734,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0             (24,029,956)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0             126,215,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0              85,276,554
<BONDS>                                              0              56,892,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                 117,224
<OTHER-SE>                                           0              71,937,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0              28,292,992
<SALES>                                     47,214,024             135,466,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                       29,286,263              81,731,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,280,039               6,837,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,148,576)             (5,365,076)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,148,576)             (5,365,076)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,148,576)             (5,365,076)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.42)                  (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)                  (0.58)


</TABLE>
ALAN M. ARAKAWA

MAYOR

200 South High Street

Wailuku, Hawai'j 96793-2155

Telephone (808) 270-7855

Fax (808) 270-7870

e-rnail: mayors.oftice@mauicounty.gov

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

, Ke'ena 0 Ka Meia

COUNTY OF MAUl - Kalana 0 Maui

March 10,2014

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer

Director, Essential Air Service

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Schlemmer:

RE: Letter of Support for Mokulele Airlines' Kalaupapa EAS Proposal

I am writing in support of Mokulele Flight Services, Inc. (Mokulele Airlines) with

regard to the company's application to provide essential air service to Kalaupapa on the

island ofMoloka'i. While Kalaupapa technically comprises Kalawao County within the

State ofHawai'i, the island of Molokai is one of the four main islands that comprise

Maui County.

My office has received calls from a number ofMoloka'i residents who voiced

their concerns that flights in and out of Molokai have been suspended due to Island Air

refocusing flights to and from Lanai. To meet the growing needs of the island of

Moloka'i, Mokulele has already responded by expanding flight service to Moloka'i,

which is helping the community regain some of their travel options.

It is my belief that Mokulele is the ideal carrier to provide essential service to

Kalaupapa, as the company is known to offer competitively-priced flights and passengeroriented schedules that other airlines often do not. Additionally, as a government

employee and frequent traveler myself, I can personally attest to the friendly and efficient

staff.

Mokulele Airlines has upgraded its fleet with nine new 9-passenger Cessna

Caravan aircraft. To further demonstrate their commitment to safety, each flight is

operated with two pilots, although not an FAA requirement.

For the reasons stated above, I humbly ask that the essential air service route to

Kalaupapa be awarded to Mokulele Flight Services, Inc. Thank you for your

consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

ALAN M. ARAKAWA

Mayor, County of Maui
#### Evans’s Estate

(No. 2).

Argued Jan. 4, 1919.

Appeal, No. 103, Jan. T., 1917, by Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities, Trustee, from decree of O. C. Philadelphia Co., April T., 1888, No. 403, sustaining exceptions to adjudication in Estate of Emma L. Evans.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Walling and Simpson, JJ.

Reversed.

Exceptions to adjudication.

The court sustained the exceptions.

*Errors assigned*were in sustaining the exceptions to the adjudication.

*Maurice Brown Saul,*of *Prichard, Saul, Bayard & Evans,*for appellant.

*Thomas James Meagher,*for Harry S. Mesirov, trustee in bankruptcy of William F. Russell, appellee.

*C. H. Hepburn,*of *Hepburn, Dechert & Norris,*for Eliza A. Settle, Sallie F. Coxe and Adam E. Wright, appellees.

April 21, 1919:

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Brown,

William F. Russell, the fourth nephew of the testatrix to die during the lifetime of her sister, Sarah E. Russell, was adjudged a bankrupt June 29, 1900, and, on the theory that he had a vested interest in the fund held by the appellant, the court below directed it to pay his share to his trustee in bankruptcy. As we have held in an opinion filed herewith in appeals to January Term, 1917, Nos. 120 and 121, that Ms interest was not vested, the award to the trustee in bankruptcy must be set aside, and it is so ordered, the costs on this appeal to be paid out of the funds in the hands of the appellant.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 858 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 House Calendar No. 141
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 858

                          [Report No. 114-741]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the 
  Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in the income 
     threshold used in determining the deduction for medical care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2016

   Mr. Burgess, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the 
  Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in the income 
     threshold used in determining the deduction for medical care.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in the income 
threshold used in determining the deduction for medical care. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
                                                 House Calendar No. 141

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 858

                          [Report No. 114-741]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the 
  Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in the income 
     threshold used in determining the deduction for medical care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 12, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT September 18, 2012

No. 11-1697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RYAN JAMES CRAIG, Appellant

(M.D. Pa. No. 1-06-cr-00219-001)

Present: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

Motion to Modify and/or Clarify Opinion

Respectfully,

Clerk/JK

___________________ ______________ORDER______

_______________ ___________ The foregoing Motion is GRANTED. Fo otnote 2 shall be removed from the Opinion filed on September 17, 2012.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas M. Hardiman Circuit Judge

Dated: October 5, 2012 JK/cc: Stephen R. Cerutti, II, Esq. Tina Schneider, Esq.
#### The State, ex rel. Robinson, Appellee, *v.*Hightower, Appellant. (Two cases.)

(Nos. 31757 and 31758

Decided February 23, 1950.)

*95
      *Messrs. Parker, Shackelford é Dixon,*for appellee.

*Mr. Wyatt G. Brownlee,*for appellant.

By the Court.

When these cases were before this court on motions to certify the records, counsel for Hightower stated the questions were (1) whether children who are born in lawful wedlock are presumed to be legitimate, (2) whether Section 12110, General Code, means a woman who was unmarried at the time the children were conceived and born and not unmarried when the complaint was made and (3) whether it is the duty of the woman who makes the complaint to prove impossibility of access by her husband during the period.

Questions (2) and (3) are again presented on the merits, upon the records filed in this court, after motions to certify were allowed. Question (1), as now presented, is whether children who are conceived and born in lawful wedlock are presumed to be legitimate.

The paternity of the children and the marital status of the complainant were determined by the Juvenile Court in its journal entries of October 24, 1947. The defendant later attempted to controvert paternity and marital status on the ground of newly discovered evidence presented by his motions for new trial filed under Section 11576, General Code.

Unless the Juvenile Court committed error in overruling the motions for new trial and should have admitted the birth certificates in evidence, the records before this court are not sufficient for a determination of the aforestated three questions.

Section 11576, General Code, provides that a new trial shall be granted for “newly discovered evidence, *96material for the party applying, *which with reasonable diligence he could not have discovered and produced at the trial.”*(Emphasis added.)

There is nothing in the records of the present cases to show that the defendant exercised dne diligence or any diligence to discover and produce the certificates during the preliminary trial at which he changed his pleas from not guilty to guilty.

In *Domanski v. Woda,*132 Ohio St., 208, 6 N. E. (2d), 601, this court held in the syllabus:

> “1. New trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence are not favored by the courts.

> *“2.*The granting or refusing of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and when such discretion has not been abused reviewing courts should not interfere.

> “3. Newly discovered evidence is other than that which might have been known before the termination of a trial had due diligence been used.”

The judgments of the Court of Appeals, affirming the judgments of the Juvenile Court, are affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6019** 
MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, f/k/a Querrel Devin Glover , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , Chief District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 02185

- CCB )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela seeks to appeal the district court’s ord er dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint
. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Valenzuela seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for her to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the district court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

– 67 (4th Cir. 1993) . Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED